Rock Paper Scissors: RNG or Pure Skill?
RNG
“RNG” is probably one of the most ubiquitous terms used among gamers. In fact, it is so commonly uttered that I think it fits the level of an acronym that does not need to be introduced. Also, its meaning as an acronym in the gaming world has probably gone beyond what it means. Here is a good example of RNG from a popular game, famous for its RNG.
If you are unfamiliar with the game “Hearthstone”, let me quickly summarize this clip for you. There is a series of two great feats of RNG. The first is that a card is played that lets the player take control of a random card of the enemy. He ends up taking control of the most valuable card named “Ragnaros”, a card with the special power to deal 8 damage to a random enemy creature or player at the end of the turn. For the second feat of RNG in the clip, Ragnaros ends up dealing the 8 damage to the enemy player, which was enough to end the game.
This clip is a good demonstration of what RNG means to most gamers in action, it has two “dice rolls” where each time the player had a 1 in 4 chance of it going their way. Winning both 1 in 4s was the only way for the player to finish their opponent in that single turn. “Lucky” for the player, both went his way, which constituted a highlight clip. Basic probability gave him a 1 in 16 (6.25%) chance of this outcome. Not a chance outside of imagination, but getting to a game state like this in the first place is also less common.
RNG and Hate
Although some gamers may not mind RNG, there are plenty of people who would subscribe to “hating” RNG. I wonder if there is a substack they can subscribe to?
Disclaimer: I also want to set the record straight that you could also call me an RNG hater. Just because I refer to “them” as a group, does not mean I am excluding myself.
In the previous section, I actually chose Hearthstone for two reasons. The first is simple enough. It’s massively popular, and boasted 23.5 million active players in 2020. The second is because it’s a game notorious among its players for its rage-inducing RNG. To outline the two main sources:
It is a game where a deck of cards is drawn from, so there is RNG in what cards each player gets.
It is a game where playing the cards will have massively variable effects. Think “this card will do between 1 and 4 damage to an enemy”.
This has made the fanbase have a love-hate relationship with the game. When you lose a game because your opponent “got lucky”, it can feel quite bad. Many people over the years have blamed their quitting of the game on the RNG.
If RNG is so vehemently hated, it raises the question of why RNG might be introduced to a game. This is a topic I will certainly explore in a future post (or maybe even several). For now I will summarize it as “it is a way of adding variability for replayability”.
Games without RNG
The most famous example of a game without RNG, is the timeless classic of chess. In chess there is no randomness. Both players are reacting to each other’s moves, which follow strict rules.
In the previous section, I mentioned how RNG introduces variability for replayability, but considering chess is probably one of the longest living games, it seems to not need RNG to buff it’s replayability. So RNG is only one factor that can add replayability. I will expand more on this in a future post.
In physical games, RNG will usually come in the form of a die roll, or by shuffling a deck of cards. Both of these require an effort, taking a non-zero amount of time on behalf of the players. In the case of a die roll, it usually happens during the game, meaning the game pace will be slowed. In the case of shuffling a deck, it usually happens in preparation for the game. Preparing for a game is time not spent playing the game.
With computers, adding RNG is much easier than with physical games. Tedious die rolls or or deck shuffling can be replaced with split second computation. With the ease of use, it is no surprise that RNG is much more commonplace in the computer game world.
Of course there are still many competitive computer games without RNG. One famous example I will focus on for the purpose of this post, is “Starcraft 2”. One common way that people describe these types of competitive computer games is “Pure Skill”.
Pure Skill, Pride, and Admiration
For the crowd that hates RNG, what games will capture them more? Maybe after they get frustrated with a Hearthstone match where the RNG gods did not go their way, they decide to check out a game with zero RNG such as Starcraft 2. This is where the phrase “Pure Skill” comes into the picture. There are no RNG components. Much like chess lacks die rolls, they lack chance, and instead are variable based on player action.
The extension from this is a sense of “pride” which comes along with playing these games. The RNG-filled games are for casual gamers who depend on the luck to give them more chance at a win. The Pure Skill games mean that success can only be attributed to you. When success can be attributed to you, and you alone, I would even argue that this pride is well placed.
What about when others see more success than you? The Pro Gamers of huge Pure Skill games are at a level above the rest of us mortals. In this sense, the Pure Skill lends itself to “admiration”.
Pure Skill, implying the positive feelings of pride and admiration, is the converse to the RNG hate.
Rock Paper Scissors vs RNG
If a software developer were to make a game where you played Rock Paper Scissors (RPS) versus a computer, they would likely use RNG to decide your opponent’s move. Unless they wanted one move to have a higher chance of winning than the others, they would likely make it an equal 1 in 3 chance for each move on the part of the computer.
So how do we feel about the player’s chance of beating the computer opponent? “It’s Pure RNG.” For most people, likely a pretty dull game. For RNG haters, likely the most pointless waste of time to ever engage in.
What happens if we take the computer out of the game, and replace it with the thrill of human vs human competition? In this case, each player individually makes a choice between rock, paper or scissors, and they meet in glorious combat. All of a sudden the RNG is gone from the game.
Now we might call RPS a “Pure Skill” game.
Pure Skill meets Rock Paper Scissors
“However, by exploiting the psychological weaknesses of inherently non-random opponents, it is possible to gain a significant advantage.” - Wikipedia on RPS
Indeed there are certainly people who have an advantage in competitive RPS. These people are engaging in a Pure Skill game, albeit with probably a high variance of winner even with massive skill differences.
I will tell you, I am definitely not one of these skillful RPS players. Sometimes I have friends that want to decide something based on a game of RPS, maybe a best of 3. If the consequences are small, I will play along, and maybe lose a little more often than not. However, if we are playing for something I feel matters, I will actually rely on my friend google and type “roll 1d6”. I let the RNG built into google make my choice. Why? Because I have no faith in my abilities and would rather know I have a 1 in 3 chance of winning. By the way, employing this strategy, I have also been accused of cheating. I usually counter with “fine, let’s not use RPS for this decision”.
In a low number of RPS games (say best of 3 instead of best of 99), it is pretty clear there is at least some amount of luck even with significant skill differences. If I were able to more randomly make my selections in my head, I would also be adding more luck into the game. This luck differs from RNG though, as it does not require randomness to be implemented.
In conclusion, I would describe RPS as “a pure skill game with a large amount of luck”.
Other Pure Skill Games
With such a crazy conclusion, let us quickly re-visit the other examples we had of “Pure Skill” games.
Chess
I would put Chess in the category of “a pure skill game with no luck”. This comes down to the fact that each player takes turns (as opposed to simultaneous turns like RPS), and the board is in a transparent state. Because of this each player always has full knowledge of the game state, and may make the most optimal move.
If we want to take a little of a different approach to this, what if a player tried to introduce randomness? What if their moves were made to be more random? I think we know that generally the good set of moves is very small. Without a way to bring some luck to chess, it probably means that the game is very skill based.
Starcraft 2
Starcraft 2 (SC2) falls in the category of “a pure skill game with some luck”. SC2 has luck? But there’s no RNG! I will have to describe a few factors about SC2 that brings luck into the picture. The primary reason is that in contrast to chess, SC2 does not have a transparent game state. For those that don’t play, Starcraft has a fog of war that “hides” some of the enemy pieces. Because of this they could be manipulating the game state, but you cannot tell how. This means you could be making a move for which your opponent is actually secretly well prepared. In a future post, I will go into more detail on some of these RPS elements of SC2.
Before the Starcraft fans (of which I am a huge one) get up in arms over accusing their “Pure Skill” game of having luck there is another factor. What we haven’t considered is the degree actual skill plays. In Starcraft skill differences make for catastrophic differences in win odds. This definitely far outweighs any effect luck has between two different levels of play. A good player will rarely be “blindly countered” by a bad player.
I have often seen SC2 players and commentators praise Starcraft for being a game of “Pure Skill” like it means there is no luck. So next time someone tells you how Starcraft 2 or some other strategy game is “Pure Skill”, tell them you prefer the “Pure Skill” game of Rock Paper Scissors.
... and if you like this post’s explanation feel free to share it.